Re: Revised wireless tree management practices

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:31:02AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
> > "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> writes:
> >
> >> I still see value in a tree that has a reasonably stable base and
> >> contains both wireless fixes and wireless features.
> >
> > I agree, it makes things a lot easier.
> >
> >> So, I think wireless-testing remains as the focal point for wireless
> >> LAN testing and development. I'll just be getting patches there in a
> >> slightly different process.
> >
> > Sounds very good. So I'll continue using wireless-testing. Thanks.
> 
> But we use wireless-next as base though if we want to send you pull
> requests, ay?

Yes, that is correct -- people that want to send patches (or simply
test) should use wireless-testing.  People that want to send pull
requests need to have trees based on wireless-2.6 (for fixes) and/or
wireless-next-2.6 (for features).  If you are sending pull requests
and have a feature that depends on a fix then we'll have to coordinate
to make sure the right bits get into the right trees.

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.